ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.

As I still have many
questions unanswered I will give space in one more number for their
consideration.

A brother writes-"I
like to read "The Spirit of the Word" though I cannot believe
it all as you do, and am not satisfied in regard to the doctrine of
Substitution. N. B. If God did not teach Abraham that doctrine in Gen.
22 what did he teach him, and what did it all signify? Please give us a
direct reply."

The chapter referred to is
the one that tells us about Abraham offering up Isaac; and the brother
seems to think that because the Lord finally supplied a ram for the
sacrifice in the place of Isaac that therefore the doctrine of
Substitution is taught. It is indeed a fact that God provided a ram as a
substitute for Isaac as a sacrifice, but this gives no support whatever
to the "orthodox" doctrine of Substitution; the brother mistakes
entirely the typical significance of the various characters in this
transaction. Like the case of Abraham, Hagar and Sarah, this also is an
"allegory." Abraham offering up his "only son," represents God
who gave his "only begotten Son" for the world's redemption (See
Rom. 4:17, margin). Isaac of
course represents Christ, the promised "Seed" (Gal. 3:16); now what
or who does the ram represent who was substituted for Isaac as the
sacrifice? if it indicates anything in the type, if it supports the idea
of substitution in the atonement, it would indicate that Christ did not
die at all but that something or someone else suffered in his
stead, a theory of substitution that neither my
brother nor any one else that I know of would favor; the fact is, that
typically, Isaac is to be considered as having been actually offered up
a sacrifice (Heb. 11:17), and raised from the dead, "from whence also
Abraham received him in a figure" Heb.
11:19). There is certainly not the slightest support here for the "orthodox"
doctrine of substitution.

In this connection I would add another word on
the subject of

OBJECTIONS VS.
BIBLE PROOF.

Years ago
in my school days I learned this principle, applicable in all reasoning,
viz. Mere objections against an argument do not
invalidate, or even weaken that argument.
There is no theory, proposition or doctrine in
any department of human knowledge, however well established or widely
believed, but that strong and sometimes even unanswerable objections may
be brought against it; but
these objections do not weaken the theory, proposition or doctrine, so
long as the evidence or proof upon which they rest remains intact. I
refer to this because honest, simple souls are sometimes beguiled into
giving up a well established position simply because some formidable
appearing objections are brought against it, while
at the same time the proofs are unanswerable. For instance, a
certain doctrine is proved from plain scripture, say for example the
doctrine of Probation after Death; it rests upon a good, solid, Bible
basis; and yet apparently very strong objections may be brought against
it; now shall my faith in the doctrine be abandoned or weakened because
of these objections, even supposing I cannot answer them? certainly not,
so long as the Bible proof remains firm. If any one wishes to overthrow
that doctrine the proper way to do is, not to pile up objections against
it, but to go to work and destroy the proof if
they can; when that is
done, the doctrine falls, and not until then. I had an illustration of
this once in my own experience. When I first became interested in the
truths set forth in "The Spirit of the Word" and while I was still a
minister in the Methodist Episcopal church, I was one evening talking to
a company of Christians on this doctrine of Probation after death, and I
made the same statement that I have made many times since, and with
increasing emphasis, that there was not a single passage of scripture
that taught that physical death fixed our
eternal destiny; several passages were quoted and we talked about them,
and at last one brother, who was opposed to the doctrine, quoted John
8:21, "Ye shall die in your sins; whither I go ye cannot come." I
was new to these truths at that time, and had never thought of that
passage in connection with that doctrine, and I was for the time
staggered; the passage seemed to teach that those who died in their sins
could never come where Jesus was. I could not at the time harmonize the
passage with the doctrine of a probation after death; and the brother
who advanced it went away quite triumphant at the victory he had won
over me; and yet my faith in the doctrine was not weakened in the least,
for I knew it rested on a strong scriptural foundation, that neither
that brother nor any one since has ever been able to shake. I could not
answer his objection, but still I clung to the doctrine because the proof
of it was not at all weakened by the objection.
I went home from the meeting to consider the objection and it did not
take much study to entirely break its force. In the first place I found
that it did not say
what it seemed to
say; it seemed to
teach that those who die in their sins can never come where Jesus is;
but it does not say that. It says "Ye shall die in your sins,"
a mere statement of fact which afterward came true, for those wicked
Jews to whom he was talking did die
in their sins; then Jesus states another fact, "whither I go ye cannot
come;" he does not say, whither I go ye cannot come because
ye shall die in your sins; neither does he say
that they would never come
to him, but simply, "whither I go ye cannot come." Now we
have no right to conclude from this statement that those who die in
their sins will never come where Jesus is; the passage says
not so; we may think it implies
that, but that is merely our opinion and has no
more authority than another man's opinion; let us beware how we "add
to this book" (Rev. 22:18). A little further study on the passage made
me certain that
Christ did not intend to teach by these words anything like what the
brother supposed, for I found in John 13:33, that Jesus makes a
precisely similar statement to his own disciples. "Little children,
yet a little while I am with you, ye shall seek me, and as I
said unto the Jews
whither I go ye cannot come so
now I say to you." Did Christ mean when he
said this to the Jews that they should never come to him? if he did then
he meant the same thing when he repeated the same words to his
disciples. Surely he meant nothing of the kind; the disciples could not
go whither he went, but he would "come again" to them
(John 14:3), as he would to the Jews (Rom.
11:25,26), and to all the groaning and travailing creation, that is
waiting with "earnest expectation" for "the manifestation of the
Sons of God" (Rom. 8:19), the promised "Seed" in whom all the
families of the earth will be blessed by being turned "every one of
them from their iniquities" (1-4-78). Thus the objection was entirely
removed and another proof of the glorious doctrine of the "Restitution
of all things" was found.

Now apply all this to the
objection I have been noticing above against the true doctrine of the
atonement, founded upon the type of Abraham offering up Isaac. The
brother says he cannot believe this doctrine is true because the type
seems to him to teach substitution. But can he answer the great array of
solid scriptural proof that goes to establish this true doctrine, and to
disprove the "orthodox" doctrine of substitution? If he cannot, then
even though this objection might still stand in his way, apparently
insurmountable, yet he should accept the doctrine as established by the
evidence, and trust to time, and deeper study, and clearer light, to
sweep away all objections.

Let me warn you, my friends,
do not let any man
snatch a well established truth away from you by a plausible or even a
staggering objection. It is easy to make objections; and ofttimes it is
very hard to clear them away. But even if you cannot answer the
objections, you can turn on the objector and say, "I am not prepared
now to reply to all your objections, but there is the doctrine, and there
is the proof; can
you shake that? until you can, the doctrine stands in spite of your
objections."

I have referred to this
principle before in connection with my answer to the brother in
1-10-225; that brother simply brings objections against the doctrines
assailed without attempting to answer the proof of those doctrines;
those objections are calculated to frighten a timid person away from the
doctrines, even though the latter had the very best of evidence to
establish them; the full acceptance of the great Bible doctrine that "all
things are of God," does lead to some very startling conclusions, as I
have shown again and again in this paper; and although the doctrine is
undoubtedly true yet these conclusions seem to some so utterly
impossible (as for instance that God is responsible for the introduction
of sin into the world and for the present wretched condition of things,
etc.), that with the most glaring inconsistency they reject the doctrine
even while they confess that they cannot shake the Bible evidence upon
which it rests; this is mental and moral cowardice; we need not be
afraid to accept what comes to us well accredited by scriptural
testimony, let the consequences be what they may. The truth will always
bear its own weight, and he who walks out upon it, fearless and
trusting, will find that it leads not to confusion, darkness and
dishonor, as sometimes it seems as though it would,
but to order, light and glory, both to the follower of truth, and to the
great God, the source of all truth.

I
would again repeat that seemingly weighty objections can be brought
against almost any position or doctrine; let them not disturb you or
prevent you from accepting the doctrine if only the evidence is
satisfactory. Sometimes apparently unanswerable objections will arise in
our own minds against a doctrine which yet we feel is undoubtedly
founded upon the truth. What shall we do? Shall we wait and waver until
all our doubts and objections are removed? if we act thus we shall not
be likely to become established in
any truth. Accept what seems to you to be truth, according to the best
light you have, all objections to the contrary notwithstanding, and if
it is truth the objections will melt away like mists before the rising
sun, and "then shall we know if
we followon
to know." And yet there are many who will not do this; they doubt,
they are uncertain, they have objections, and so they stand "halting
between two opinions" and are never established,
for "If ye will not believe surely
ye shall not be established" (Isa.
7:9). Belief is not absolute knowledge. Here and now we know only in part;
we see through a glass darkly; we walk by faith, not by sight; shall we
therefore waver, and hesitate, and halt, and not walk at all, because we
cannot be absolutely sure of
the way? no; go forward according to the best light you have, and thou
shalt come to know by
following on to
know. With many persons their great hindrance in the way of truth is

DOUBTS

Christians
have said to me concerning the truth set forth in "The Spirit of the
Word,"-"It looks very beautiful; it seems
like truth; I wish it were true; the proof seems
unanswerable; it certainly harmonizes Scripture as no other view does, but"-and
then come the objections, the doubts and uncertainties,-"but" this,
and "but" that,-hindering them from
fully accepting, to their comfort and spiritual advancement, what
nevertheless seems to them good and beautiful and true. We must accept
things on satisfactory evidence, even if there is some doubt about it;
we should not wait to have every doubt and objection removed; if the
proof seems clear and scriptural so that we can see no flaw in it,
believe; in spite of doubts, "follow on," and if the pathway "shines
more and more" (Prov. 4:18), then you may know that you are on the
line of truth. But "if ye will not believe ye shall not be
established;" if you do not follow on you shall not
know; if you halt, and waver, and cavil, and
object, then you will not advance at all, but the light that is in you
will become darkness. There is hardly anything that we believe
concerning which we can say, "I believe it without a doubt." We
should not believe blindly, neither should we refuse evidence; undue
credulity is no more to be avoided than extreme skepticism; to refuse to
accept, and to act upon, what is unanswerably established, is
unreasonable and foolish. It. is simply unbelief and distrust that ties
us to the old ruts after we are convinced that the path of truth is
elsewhere. "With the heart man
believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. 10:10), not with the head;
we cannot expect to have every intellectual
doubt removed, and every objection answered, and our way made absolutely
sure, until "that which is perfect is come," and "we know fully
even as we have been known fully" (1 Cor. 13;
N.V.*margin).
Now "We walk by faith," we "live by faith," and "faith is the
assurance of things hoped for,
the proving of things not seen"
(Heb. 11:1; N.V.). "We having the same spirit of faith,
according as it is written, I believed, and
therefore have I spoken, we also believe, and therefore speak" (2 Cor.
4:13), and thus we "enter into rest" (Heb.
4:3). There is no other rest here except the rest of faith, and
faith is not what the natural man would call certainty; and yet it will
become to us more and more like certainty,
as we follow on to know the Lord; "without faith it is impossible to
please God," and without faith we cannot be established,
and hence we are in just the condition to be "tossed
to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight
of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."
Let us rather be "Rooted and built up in Him, and established
in the faith, as
ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving." (Col. 2:7).

There
is a maxim in the world which says, "Be sure you are right and then go
ahead," and some who do not think very deeply are persuaded that there
is profound wisdom in this saying; but like many another worldly maxim
it will not bear close examination; why, bless your heart, you would
never go ahead at all, or anywhere else, if you always waited to be sure
you were right. There are but very few things in this world, in fact
scarcely anything, that we can say we are sure of, except we use the
word in a very modified sense. Instead of the maxim I should say, "Decide
according to the best light you have and then, whether you are sure or
not, go ahead, trusting in God to lead you, praying 'with Elihu of
old, "That which I see not, O Lord, teach thou me" (Job 34:32). Be
deliberate, be cautious, accept nothing without proof, clear and
convincing, but when a proposition comes to you backed up by such proof,
so that you are convinced of its truth, or even if there is clearly more
evidence for than against it,
accept it, and act accordingly; let your works correspond to your
faith (1-3-65) and, if you are "of the truth" (John 18:37), you will
speedily be assured by the result whether you are "walking in the
truth" (2 John 4) or not. "He that willeth to do his will shall know
of the doctrine" (John 7:17; N. V.). Remember that neither objections
nor doubts invalidate evidence; proof cannot be overthrown by objections
and doubts, but only by counter proof. I repeat this thought and
emphasize it because many refuse to accept a position on the clearest
evidence, because they can see objections to it, or have doubts
concerning it, when they do not attempt or pretend to answer the proof
that establishes it.

As
a further illustration of the foregoing I will notice in this connection
a criticism in "The World's Hope" upon the view advanced in this
paper that the atoning death of Christ was when he laid down his
pre-existent life, and not when he suffered physical death on the
cross. I have abundantly shown both from the law and from the testimony
that this view is the Bible truth. "The World's Hope" does not
attempt to answer these proofs, but simply presents certain objections
to this view and makes some unsupported assertions in favor of the
position that the death by which we are reconciled to God was Christ's
physical death. I do not refer to this in order to open a discussion
upon this point with the above mentioned paper; but simply to illustrate
what I have already said concerning objections, and to show how the truth
is never injured but always advanced by
investigation. "Ye can do nothing against the truth but for the truth"
(2 Cor. 13:8); when opposition to a Bible doctrine makes its
truthfulness more apparent, then my faith in it is strengthened and
confirmed. Moreover the importance of this subject of the atoning death
of Christ fully warrants a further reference to it. Several have written
to me concerning it, asking questions and raising objections. What
follows will, if I err not, answer these questions and clear away these
objections.

In the first place I would
say that no one who believes in the preexistence of Christ can deny that
when Jesus became incarnate he laid down a life and took upon himself a
condition which the Bible again and again calls death. When one lays
down life and enters into death, he dies, and thus Christ died when he
"was made flesh;" whether this death was the atoning
death or not, it is certain that Christ did thus die. When I say that
Christ laid down a life, I mean that he left a certain state or
condition of life and entered into a totally different state or
condition which in comparison with the former is called death. I do not
know but that all life of every kind in its last analysis, in. its
essence, is the same; no human being has ever yet been able to tell what
life is in itself, and I by no means attempt it; in the above position I
simply take my stand on the plain and repeated teachings of the Bible.
The preexistence of Christ is clearly taught. He was rich, he was
glorious, in his pre-incarnate state; "he came down from heaven," he
became poor, he was made sin and a curse, and this state the Scriptures
call death; hence I say that the view that Christ died in some sense
when he became incarnate is certainly scriptural. Some of my
correspondents have expressed themselves "amazed" that I should
speak of a person being both alive and dead at the same time; I can only
say that any who object to this form of expression must settle the
matter with Christ and the apostles, for they certainly did speak
in this way (see 1-10-233). In previous articles I have given full proof
that this fallen state is a condition death, and that Christ was in that
condition while here in the flesh, and no amount of objections or
assertions will overthrow that proof. Now we will examine the criticism
of "The World's Hope" and other points that I wish to refer to
will thereby be brought out.

"It is not clear," says
the "Hope," "that Christ died by coming into this world. That was
not death. There is no scriptural evidence that he either lost or left
his divinity when he came in the flesh; it is not necessary to resort to
such a position to defend the preexistence of Christ, .
. . He left a condition of glory by hiding
himself, as it were, in humanity, . . . God
was manifest in the
flesh- the divine in the
human, instead of the divine dying. The divine cannot die; he brought
his divinity into humanity.

In reply to this I
would say it may not be clear
to the editor of the "Hope" that Christ died
by coming into the world, but it is clear to me that is the fact
is the fact is
clear-the plain teaching of the Bible, and though all the whys
and wherefores of
this fact may not be clear, yet we should accept the fact unless, as I
have observed above, we can overthrow the evidence upon which it rests.
When my brother said a little further on in the above quotation that
when Christ became incarnate "he left a condition of glory by hiding
himself, as it were, in humanity," he admits all that it is needful to
admit in order to establish the above fact
whether it is "clear" to him or not.
My brother will not deny, since he fully believes in the pre-existence
of Christ, that that "condition of glory" which Christ left
was an existence, a life; and he cannot
deny that that "humanity" in which "he hid
himself," as the brother expresses it, is a condition which the
Scriptures repeatedly denominate death; thus from his own words we
conclude that Christ laid down life and entered into death, and it is
very "clear" to me, and I should think it ought to be clear to
everyone, that this is dying. Especially so when we know that Christ
himself declared while here in the flesh, and before he was crucified,
that he had already
laid down the life which he would take up again when his trial was ended
(1-3-53). I would say furthermore that I do not "resort to this
position to defend the pre-existence of Christ; I never had any such
thought; in fact the truth seems to me to be just the other way about,
viz., that the pre-existence of Christ inevitably leads to this
position; and that no one can consistently deny this position unless
they also deny the pre-existence. If Christ did pre-exist, then he certainly
did lay down a life when he became incarnate, and he did
enter into a condition of death, and hence he did
die; all this seems to me absolutely positive; however we may understand
that death, or whatever place we may give it in our theology, a death
there certainly was if Christ
pre-existed.

Now another point; the
brother uses the terms divinity and
divine, in a very
vague, obscure manner; I cannot certainly make out what he means by
those terms; if I did not know something about his theological views, I
should think that he used those terms in the usual "orthodox" sense,
implying that Christ was both God and man, "Very God and very man,"
as the creeds express it. He uses the terms as though he thought that
the Divinity of Christ was an entity distinct
from Christ himself,-that when Christ came in the flesh, his Divinity
came along with him, but his Divinity did not die, "the divine cannot
die," etc. This is by no means "clear" to me. The one meaning of divine
as used in reference to Christ is, if I err not,
godlike; this I have already fully shown (see 1-5-97). Of course
Christ did not "leave" this or "lose" it when he became
incarnate, nor did he leave or lose it at any time afterward. Christ's
divinity (his godlikeness) has no existence separate from Christ
himself, any more than a man's character has an existence separate
from the man. Christ's divinity is not a thing that he could leave or
lose unless he committed sin. Jesus was divine (Godlike) before he came
in the flesh (he was "in the form of God" Phil. 2:6), he was divine
during his incarnation, for he came to reveal God to us (1-5-100) and he
is forever divine. He is indeed "the express made of God," perfectly
divine. He was not absolutely God, the Father, but he was perfectly godlike.
But all this has no bearing that I can see upon
the question at issue. I yield to no one in my estimation of the
absolute divinity of Christ; but that does not disprove, or indeed
affect in any way, the position that Christ died when he became
incarnate. Let us be careful to define our terms, and to use them
according to definition, and not talk round and round to no purpose,
using terms that to nine-tenths of our readers or hearers mean nothing,
thus "darkening counsel by words without knowledge." If the editor
of the "Hope" uses the term divine in the sense of godlike, which
is, I think, the Bible sense of the word, then his remarks in connection
with that term have no force in the direction of the question under
discussion; if he does not use the term in that sense I know not how
he uses it and hence I am at a loss how to meet
him.

Now I will quote again from
the "Hope."

"'Christ died for our
sins according to the Scriptures, and rose again the third
day, according to the Scriptures.' If the spirit
of the word locates his death at his coming in
the flesh, then the time of his rising should
agree with it. Did he rise again to his divine life the third day from
his coming in the flesh?"

To this criticism I would
reply, first, that even supposing I could not harmonize this Scripture
with my position, the latter would not therefore be disproved, because
of this very obvious principle of Bible interpretation, viz.:

Disconnected passages of
Scripture cannot disprove a Bible doctrine, that is established by many
passages, and by the general scope and teaching of the Word.

I venture to assert that no
Bible doctrine whatever can be advanced that disconnected passages may
not be found apparently bearing against it. We must decide Bible
questions according to the preponderance of
evidence, and according to the general drift of Bible teaching, after a
thorough examination of the entire
Word in connection with it; and after a Bible question is thus
settled, it cannot be unsettled or disproved by
an isolated passage here and there. Every Bible student, who searches
the Scriptures, finds himself compelled to accept doctrines because of
the great mass of evidence in their favor, while at the same time there are
disconnected passages which he cannot
satisfactorily harmonize theretowith; these inharmonious passages,
however, should not be allowed to disprove the well established
doctrine.

The neglect and violation of
the above principle is one of the prime causes of the multiplicity of
sects and denominations; multitudes of doctrines, absolutely opposed to
one another, are built upon detached portions of Scripture, when if
Christians were more careful to gather, and were willing to accept, the
preponderating testimony of the Word, they would come much nearer to a "unity"
of the faith." I take this occasion to refer
to this principle because I deem it very important, and I want to do
what little I can to "thoroughly furnish" God's people (those who
I am able to reach) "unto all good works."

It is not difficult,
however, to harmonize the passage referred to with my position. There is
a sense in which Christ died physically "for our
sins," i.e., as the word rendered "for" signifies, for
the sake of, because
of, by reason of, on account of.
Christ need not have died at all if it had not been for sin; he died two
deaths (see explanation of Isa. 53:9,
in 1-3-64), and both of them was on account of, or by reason of, in. How
his physical death was on account of sin will appear in my answer to the
next quotation.

"It is not denied that it
was a great condescension and humiliation on Christ's part to assume
humanity. But the question is, was that the sacrifice for atonement?-even
if it could be proved that the divine died, was that the
death that reconciles? I think not. The real
sacrifice needed for atonement, it will be admitted, was typified by the
killing of a beast. Was that beast a type of Christ's pre-existent
life?"

In this passage again the
brother uses the term "divine" in the vague sense above noted. I do not
think that the "divine"
died, understanding the term as I have explained it; what the
brother means by the word I can only conjecture.
He seems to speak
further as though it might be
proved that Christ did
die when he came in the flesh, and he says that the question is was that
the death that reconciles, and he tries to show from the type that it
was not. Now I claim that the type shows most clearly that it was.
I do not think "the beast was a type of Christ's
pre-existent life," but the life (blood) of the beast that was
sacrificed, and by which atonement was made
(Lev. 17:11), represents the life that Jesus
laid down for
atonement, whatever life that was. Now then what life was it that Jesus
sacrificed in order to make atonement? Was it
his preincarnate life which
he laid down when he became poor for
our sakes? or was it his physical life which
was "taken" from
him (Acts 8:33) by the Jews? It seems to me that the mere asking
of this question would irresistibly suggest the
one answer to every thoughtful Bible student-viz., that it was his
pre-incarnate life that Christ sacrificed in order to make the
atonement; and that this is the true answer I have given abundant proof
both in this paper and in preceding ones; but now let us ask again, does
the type confirm this view? it most certainly does. In the type, the
life of the beast was sacrificed to make atonement, and afterward the
dead, unclean carcass was burned without the camp. Now in the antitype
we know that the
physical death of Christ was the fulfillment of this latter part of the
type, i.e. the burning
of the sin-polluted carcass without the camp; on this point there can be
no question if the testimony of Heb. 12:11-13 is accepted; and if this
be so then the atoning death of Christ to be in harmony with the type,
must have been before his
physical death on the cross; the latter could not possibly
have been the death that reconciles, unless in
the type the burning of the dead rejected body of the sin-offering
without the camp was the atoning sacrifice. Does the editor of the "World's
Hope" take this latter view? if he were explaining to a Jew the
typical significance of the law would he point to that burning of the
dead carcass, "the skin, and the flesh, and the dung" (Lev. 16:27),
as the atonement ceremony? He ought to, to be consistent if he thinks
that the atoning death of Christ was on the literal cross; and if he
would not explain the type that way, but would look for the atoning
sacrifice previous to the disposal of the dead carcass, then he is bound
to make a corresponding change in his explanation of the antitype. Not
only is it true that the type fully confirms the view of the death of
Christ that I have presented, but in fact it will harmonize with no
other view; the type drives us to this view; we are compelled by the
type to look for the atoning death of Christ previous to his physical
death "without the gates;" the latter was no part of the atonement
ceremony proper, as we have then; his atoning death must have
been when he laid down his preincarnate life. I would call attention
also in this connection to the incidental confirmation by the type of
the position that some of my correspondents have called in question,
that Christ while here in the flesh was in a condition of death;
the animal burned without the camp had been
previously killed and was already dead; so Christ when he was "made
flesh," died, and during the entire period of his incarnation he was
in a condition of death, hence his physical death "without the gates,"
was a striking antitype to the burning of the dead
sin-offering "without the camp." I will add
also that the type shows us how Christ died physically on account
of our sins; the sin offering was
burned without the camp because it was a SIN
offering, no
other offering or sacrifice was so treated; so
Christ, the antitype of the sin offering, died physically for
our sins, i.e. because of them; but this
physical death of Christ was not his death for atonement, i.e.
reconcilation.

I will notice one more
quotation from the "Hope."

"The divine and the human in one person
are essential to the perfect Saviour. Christ is thus both the
antitypical Priest and Sacrifice. The divine destroys the enmity of the
lower nature and also imparts his own higher nature."

Here again is the vague,
indeterminate use of the term "divine"; in the first sentence
he speaks of the divine and the human in one person; in the
second sentence he speaks as though the divine were a separate
person, when he says, "the divine imparts his own higher
nature." The principle reason, however, why I introduce this
quotation is for the sake of observing that Christ was not a
Priest at all until after his resurrection; while he was "on earth
(i.e. in the earthy condition) he could not
be a priest." (Heb. 8:4) "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out
of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."
Jesus had no more right to exercise the priestly office while he was in
the flesh than any other Jew outside of the tribe of Levi and not
of the Aaronic order; after his resurrection he became a priest after a
new order, that of Melchisedek; but while he was on earth, so far as the
type of the atonement was concerned, he was nothing but the dead sin
offering.

I have several more
questions on this same subject which I shall try to answer in some
future issue. I will close the present article by proposing the
following Query-How does the physical death of Christ reconcile
the world unto God? The Bible distinctly tells us that "we are
reconciled to God by the death of
his Son;" now will someone, who believes that the death
here referred to was his physical death on the
literal cross, please answer the above query, and I shall be glad to
consider it.

A brother asks-"How can
Gen. 5:1 ("In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God
made he him") be harmonized with the view that Adam was not really
created in the image and likeness of God as set forth in 1-1-14?"

I do not know as I can make
this subject any plainer than I have in the article referred to. Gen.
5:1, is no more positive and direct than Gen. 1:27. If
the brother can see, as explained in that article, that in the latter
passage God is "calling those things which be not as though they were,"
then it seems to me he need have no difficulty in applying the same
principle to the former passage; as a matter of fact, we know that God
did not actually
create man in his own image at that time, hence we must seek some
explanation of the apparently untrue statement, that this principle
clearly furnishes the explanation.

The same brother also asks a
question about the new covenant, and the Mediator of that "better
covenant" (Heb. 8:6). I have explained the term mediator in 1-9-197
and 1-10-220. I will leave the discussion of the Covenants to some
future time when I shall try to fully consider the subject, as the
importance of it demands.

Another brother writes, "You
say that the day of Judgment is a day of rejoicing for the world. The
apostle Peter says that "the heavens and the earth, which are now, by
the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of
judgment and perdition of ungodly men?' Is that the same day that you
speak of? Sometimes passages of scripture come
to mind that are hard to harmonize with your view of the judgment."

The difficulty in
harmonizing certain scriptures with the truth arises oftentimes from our
previous education, and from the fact that we have not studied deeply
enough. I see no difficulty in harmonizing the above passage with that
view of the judgment presented in No. 6. I have partially explained this
passage in 1-5-103. In regard to the last clause, I would say that
because "the perdition (or destruction, as the word means) of ungodly
men" is spoken of as taking place in "the day of judgment," we
have no need to conclude that all the wicked are to be forever destroyed
in that day. We know that a man or a community of men may be utterly
destroyed and yet be afterward recovered from that destruction, as
witness the case of Sodom (1-6-129). In fact this is one of God's
methods; "He turneth man to destruction and saith return
ye children of men" (Psa. 90:3; see also
explanation of Psa. 83:16-18 in 1-6-127). In the Judgment day the final outcome
will be blessings for the world, though some of the processes
of Judgment will be most painful. The ungodly
will certainly be destroyed at last, so that there will not be an
ungodly one in all the world, "God shall be all in all," but how
will they be destroyed?
Not by annihilating the individual, but by curing him of his
ungodliness, and bringing him into harmony with God; or as Jude
expresses it, Christ shall come with his saints "to convince
all that are ungodly of all their ungodly deeds."
(Jude 14, 15). "The Lord killeth, and maketh
alive; he bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up;" He maketh sore,
and bindeth up; he woundeth, and his hands make whole;" "He turneth
man to destruction, and saith return ye children of men;"
"Come [then] and let
us return unto the Lord; for he hath torn, and
he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up."

I would add furthermore that
here is another instance where the principle already referred to in the
present number should be applied.

Even supposing we could not
harmonize this passage with the general teaching of the Bible in regard
to the Judgment day, we should not therefore reject that general
teaching. Accept the truth as it is set forth in the Bible as a whole
and let isolated passages wait to be reconciled
to this truth until further study, experience and light from
heaven. There are a number of doctrines that I firmly hold to the joy
and rejoicing of my heart, because I believe that the Bible as a whole
fully supports them, and yet there are some passages that I cannot
satisfactorily to myself harmonize with those doctrines. I do not think
that it is possible to lay too much emphasis upon this point. If you
want to get as near the truth as possible in this present imperfect
state, beware of partial applications
of scripture; draw your conclusions from a consideration of the
teachings of the entire Word upon any given subject, and then hold to
those conclusions notwithstanding your inability to harmonize single
passages therewith.

A sister asks concerning the
use of the word "again" in
Matt. 17:9-"until the Son of man be risen again
from the dead"-as though he had risen once
and was to rise again. The word should be omitted; it is omitted from
the New Version; also from the Emphatic Diaglott, from Rotherham's New
Testament, and from Young's Translation; there is no doubt but that
the introduction of the word into the text is a mistake. This is also
true on the above authority of the same word in Rev. 20:5, where it
should also be omitted.

A brother writes-"I am
preaching the doctrine of restitution and God is blessing my labors; now
if I should wish to form an association of those who believe as we do
what course will I pursue?"

I would answer, Don't
do it; don't
form any association. If "the love of the truth" will not hold you
together, nothing will. If you possess "the unity of the spirit"
(Eph. iv. 3) you do not need outward organization; if you have not that
unity, organization is worse than useless, it is positively harmful,
because it fosters the sectarian spirit. Do not form a sect, but
cultivate the pilgrim spirit; "here the
follower of Christ has no continuing city;" he is not of this world;
his citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20, N. V.)
and, moreover, "The Judge standeth at the door,"
therefore, Say ye not
a confederacy" (Isa. 8:12).

_______________
*i.e. New Version; refers to
The English Revised Version of 1881-1885 (RSV)